Case law

Office of the Public Defender v. State

413 Md. 411 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Apr 16, 2010

It accordingly established the OPD and designated the Public Defender as its “head.” § 3. … Nor is the absence of appellate decisions holding the OPD, who has declined representation, immune to appointment by a circuit court persuasive. The converse is equally true.

United Merchants & Manufacturers, Inc. v. David & Dash, Inc.

439 F. Supp. 1078 · District Court, D. Maryland · Oct 3, 1977

Robert Hall, Inc., is a Maryland corporation; as such it need not qualify to do business here. … Clearly, there was no reliance on the possible existence of a cause of action for unfair competition under the Lanham Act itself. Lyon, supra, 249 F.2d at 796 . 9 .

State v. Williamson

282 Md. 100 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Feb 21, 1978

Since in this case there was sufficient evidence to establish that Mrs. … But it is clearly held that one acquitted as principal may be indicted as an accessary after the fact; since that is always an offence of a different species of guilt, principally tending to evade the public justice, and

Morales v. Bryant Concrete Construction

Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jan 28, 2026

To determine whether an individual qualifies as an employer, both Maryland and federal courts apply the “economic reality test.” … App. 240, 249 (2011) (“A factual finding is clearly erroneous if there is no competent and material evidence in the record to support it.”).

Kpetigo v. Kpetigo

238 Md. App. 561 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Aug 30, 2018

The court also found that Parent qualified as F’s de facto parent under the factors set forth in Conover v. … The Court grounded its decision in the fact that “the precedent was ‘clearly wrong and contrary to established principles,’” “the passage of time and evolving events have rendered Janice M. obsolete,” and that “a majority

Adams v. Giant Food, Inc.

225 F. Supp. 2d 600 · District Court, D. Maryland · Sep 30, 2002

In order to establish a prima facie case of discriminatory discharge, each plaintiff must establish: (1) that he is a member of a protected class; (2) that he was qualified for his job and his job performance was satisfactory … Simply put, the evidence clearly establishes that similarly situated employees who were caught overstaying their breaks and sleeping while on the job or engaging in similarly unacceptable behavior were treated the same regardless

Attorney Grievance Commission v. Robertson

400 Md. 618 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Aug 3, 2007

so much of it as is true and deny or qualify the remainder. … Any matter admitted under this Rule is conclusively established unless the court on motion permits withdrawal or amendment.

Gray v. Harriet Lane Home for Invalid Children

192 Md. 251 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Feb 10, 1949

Today methods of treatment and immunization have removed diphtheria as a serious menace. Scarlet fever, under modern methods of treatment, is regarded as a mild disease. … It proposed to establish several playgrounds out of the fund and to reserve an amount necessary for the maintenance and upkeep of said park.

Thompson v. Clemens

60 L.R.A. 580 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jan 15, 1903

, when the landlord was under contract to make the repairs, but many of the decisions we there referred to, and others that might be cited, in announciug the general rule as to the landlord’s liability to the tenant, do qualify … If the use of that part of the porch was dangerous, the plaintiff knew it, and if she had been injured in the use of that would clearly have been guilty of contributory negligence.

Franklin v. State

6 Md. App. 572 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Apr 23, 1969

The Sergeant’s testimony clearly showed that he gave appellant all warnings required under Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U. … See also the Annotation appearing in 89 A.L.R.2d 478 , entitled “Impeachment of Accused as Witness by Use of Involuntary or Not Properly Qualified Confession.”

Marshall v. State

415 Md. 248 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jul 27, 2010

“This Court has maintained that the right to remain silent ‘has always been liberally construed in order to give fullest effect to this immunity.’ ” Crosby v. … The prosecuting attor *264 ney clearly was using the defendant’s silence as support for the State’s case.

Abell v. Secretary of State

251 Md. 319 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Nov 8, 1968

The words “said first day of June” refer to the previously mentioned “first day of June next after the session at which it is passed” and this language definitely establishes when the referendum petition must be filed to … As was clearly pointed out by the Attorney General of Maryland in his opinion dated June 19, 1968, Section 2 of Article XVI of the Maryland Constitution requires that a petition for a referendum must be filed before the first

Osei v. University of Maryland University College

202 F. Supp. 3d 471 · District Court, D. Maryland · Aug 15, 2016

Analysis The lengthy, meandering six-count complaint does not clearly identify distinct causes of action asserted by Plaintiff. 7 As best the court can discern, Plaintiff asserts claims of: violations of the False Claims … Even assuming arguendo that Plaintiffs claims do not fail due to sovereign immunity and qualified immunity, he nonetheless has failed to provide factual allegations in support of his conclu-sory claims sufficient to withstand

Butler v. Prince Georges County, Maryland

District Court, D. Maryland · Jun 7, 2023

City of Independence, Mo., 445 U.S. 622, 650 (1980) (holding that municipalities do not benefit from the qualified immunity of their own officers) (emphasis added); Berkley v. … Fourth, the Judge Defendants argue that the Court erred in applying the Ex Parte Young exception to their potential liability for equitable relief because the facts alleged here do not establish that a “special relationship

Stuples v. Baltimore City Police Department

119 Md. App. 221 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jan 13, 1998

As its subtitle clearly states, it deals only with “Summary Punishment or Emergency Suspension.” … It has long been established that no appeal will be from an order ... [that] is interlocutory only, and not a final judgment.”); Harkins v.

Doneski v. Comptroller of Treasury

91 Md. App. 614 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · May 1, 1992

This tax clearly discriminates against the federal government and the people with whom it deals in violation of the principle announced in Davis v. … Neither ingenuity in calculation nor form of purge in state enactments can deprive the owner of the tax exemption established for the benefit of the United States. ...

Ginwright v. Exeter Finance Corp.

280 F. Supp. 3d 674 · District Court, D. Maryland · Nov 28, 2017

Ginwright cites several eases in support of his position that a debtor providing a cell phone number ón a credit application is not sufficient to establish “express consent,” and that such consent must ■ be “clearly and unmistakably … Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 1774 (3d ed. 2005). •' As discussed above, there is little risk of a ruling that the Aspect system did not qualify as an ATDS.

State v. Thornton

73 Md. App. 247 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Dec 2, 1987

The defendant was then sworn and “qualified” by defense counsel. … SHEPERD: I believe he is qualified, Judge.

Penna. R.R. Co. v. Public Ser. Com.

126 Md. 59 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Apr 16, 1915

When couched in so general terms the ground for such a prayer is not clearly evident. … It was further held that despite this range of permissible action, the State has no arbitrary power over rates; that the devotion of the property of the carrier to public use is qualified by the condition of the carrier's

Ash v. Russell

District Court, D. Maryland · Jul 31, 2024

Ash’s claims are based on judicial acts, all four defendants are entitled to judicial immunity. Judicial immunity has been long-established, and Mr. … Under the well-established legal doctrine of sovereign immunity, the United States, its departments, and agencies cannot be sued without its express consent. United States v. Mitchell, 463 U.S. 206, 212 (1983).